Dist. 3, Part 2, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/3/q/bon-sent-III-d3-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what is said: that that flesh, before it was united to the Word, was subject to sin in Mary. For it seems false, because there is no sin except in the soul, or by reason of the soul; but that flesh was not animated before it was united to the Word: therefore it was not subject to sin. — Likewise, the blessed Virgin was sanctified before the conception of the Son of God: therefore her flesh was not subject to sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon in what precedes, sometimes sin is said [to be] the penalty or consequence itself. I say, therefore, that the flesh is not called subject to sin by reason of fault, but by reason of foulness, which is the cause of fault, and by reason of passibility, which is the penalty of fault; and in both ways it was subject to sin in Mary before her sanctification; in the second way afterward. And thus those two things are clear.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: that Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass. This seems to be false, because, since he was incarnate in the end of the ages, he seems rather to have assumed the remnants of our mass than the first-fruits.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass for a threefold reason. *(Threefold reason.)* For "first-fruits" (*primitia*) is so called from that which is first; but a thing is said to be first both according to the order of time and according to the order of dignity. *(A distinction.)* — *(First reason.)* As to the order of dignity, there is no doubt that Christ assumed the first-fruits of our flesh, on account of the fact that his flesh exceeds every dignity of human flesh. — But according as "first-fruits" is said from priority according to time, Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass not by priority, but by conformity and likeness. *(A twofold distinction.)* And there is here a twofold ground of conformity: one as to quality, the other as to power. — *(Second reason.)* As to quality, because, just as the flesh which was created in the beginning lacked all corruption of vice, so also the flesh assumed by the Word. — *(Third reason.)* But as to power there is a likeness, because in those things which are first born the vigor of nature is more intense, so that they attain to maturity; and such are called first-fruits, that is, the first fruits which were to be offered to the Lord; and such was the flesh of Christ. — And thus it is clear in what respect it is called first-fruits: both on account of dignity, and on account of the quality of purity, and on account of the vigor of power, on account of which it excels the rest, attaining first to the maturity of perfection and to the glory of sweetness; and to that extent it is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass. — And by this the determination of the aforesaid argument is clear; for it proceeds from "first-fruits" according as it is said from priority of origin.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Of her alone is the flesh not [the flesh] of sin, because concupiscence did not conceive him as mother, but grace.* For if concupiscence is a vice and a defect, it is therefore not the principle of generation. Nothing therefore has been said, when he says: concupiscence did not conceive him as mother.

**I respond:** It must be said that this text can be understood in two ways: *(First interpretation.)* in one way, that *concupiscence* is in the nominative case, and thus the construction is appositional; and then the Master denies that concupiscence, as mother, did not conceive Christ, but grace [did], for the reason that concupiscence holds the place of mother in the generation of the children of sin, according to that saying of Ezechiel: *Thy father was an Amorrhite, and thy mother a Cethite,* so that by the Amorrhite we understand the devil, and by the Cethite concupiscence. — But grace, on the contrary, is mother in spiritual generation; and because Christ had not sin in his generation, but grace, therefore grace is rather called mother than concupiscence.

*(Second and better interpretation.)* But although it can be understood in this way, yet there is another way more in harmony with the truth: that this [phrase], "concupiscence" and "grace," be in the ablative case and be construed with this verb *conceived* not according to the relation of cause, but according to the relation of concomitance; and that what he says, *mother,* stand for the Virgin Mary, and the sense is: *Mother,* that is, the Virgin Mary, did not conceive with concupiscence accompanying, but with grace accompanying; and then it is not signified that concupiscence is the principle of any conception, but a vice accompanying [it]. — And the response to the objections is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *The whole Word was made flesh.* For if a whole is that which has part and part, and the Word is most simple, he speaks ill in saying that the whole was made flesh.

**I respond:** It must be said that "whole" can be taken privatively, or positively. *(A distinction.)* If privatively, then the Word is said to be incarnate as a whole, because it does not have parts according to which it would be capable of being made flesh. In another way it is said positively; and then it is said in two ways: *(A subdistinction.)* because a whole is the same as that which is constituted of its parts; in another way it is the same as the perfect. And according as "whole" signifies the totality of integrity, the aforesaid statement is not understood [thus], but according as it signifies the totality of perfection, and according as it signifies the privation of part and part; and thus it is clear that that objection does not proceed rightly, on account of the diverse acceptation of this word "whole." But this is found determined better in the first book, distinction nineteen.

---